|
From: | Trevor Daniels |
Subject: | Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections |
Date: | Fri, 2 Jan 2009 19:30:23 -0000 |
Carl D. Sorensen wrote Friday, January 02, 2009 1:44 PM
On 1/2/09 2:32 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PMOn 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're the same as for the GDP. Unless you are proposing different standards forthe LM and the NR. If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because I'd be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM. If they apply to the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP. So ignore the rest of my comments if you intend them to apply to the LM only.Yes, NR 1 & 2 are fine. I was suggesting a slight variation on them for the LM and later chapters of the NR, since here a lot of the text does not need to be subdivided or ToC'd. The formatting of NR 1 & 2 is clear; it is the rest of the manual and the LM which is rather variable at present and I wanted to have a clear policy written down before these sections are firmed up.I think we should maintain the NR standards throughout the NR. For example,NR 6 is currently *not* organized according to the NR standards, so thereare places where an additional menu layer needs to be added. But I had thesame problem when writing chords.itely, and I think the resulting consistency in the manual is well worth maintaining.
I agree; that's why it is important to set out the standards clearly and to ensure they are consistent with clarity. Look at chapter 3. It would be silly to invent @unnumberedsubsubsecs for the sections there; they don't need it. I think the standards must accommodate the needs of the documentation, and must not be so rigid that clarity is compromised. Trevor
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |